As a Christian, I agree with these statements.
They are biblical. For instance for the first proposition that
Truth is conscience convicting, I think of one of the most moving
and powerful stories in the Bible. The story of the woman who
was caught in the act of adultery and was brought to Jesus as
a test. The law said she should be stoned to death, what did
Jesus tell the hypocrites who demanded the death penalty? The
account in John 8:9 shows that Jesus said, “He that is without
sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her…And they
who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,
went out one by one…” When Jesus looked up he asked
the woman, “Where are those thine accusers?” She responded,
“No man, Lord.” And “Jesus said unto her, ‘Neither
do I condemn thee; go and sin no more.’” (Emphasis
added.)
For the second proposition that truth should
be pursued relentlessly, we need look no further than the Book
of Genesis and examine the epistemological fall of man. I’ve
written about it in my essay What
the Fundamentalists Won’t Tell You About the Bible.
I wrote in part:
“A lie therefore
contradicts reality and creates delusions. Death is necessarily
the natural offspring of lies! Let’s understand what I have
said. Whenever we believe a lie, we have made ourselves ill—ill
of mind, soul, spirit and body. We have separated ourselves from
Reality. Delusions, falsity and superstition separate us not
only from God (ultimate reality) but from life and health! This
is as true today as it was in the Garden of Eden.”
For the third proposition, that Truth has
a source which should be pursued relentlessly, I refer you to
my commentary
under “Truth” in the Glossary:
“I
would add Deut. 32:4 (KJV) “a God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he.” And I would add: see John 14:6: “Jesus
saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life.” And
see John 14: 17, where Jesus states he will ask the Father to
send “Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive”
as the Comforter. See John 15:26 where Jesus makes it clear “I
will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth,
who proceedeth from the Father…”
For the fourth proposition, that Truth is
a compelling advocate,
one need look no further than the passage I quoted above
from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
in which, 1 John 2: 1 is quoted to clarify the meaning and the
usage of the word.
Advocate
n. “1: one that pleads the cause of another: defender (we
have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ—1 John 2:1
AV.)”
Is
God Truth?
Because this essay is trying to show that
Ohio’s ethics code is a religious document, I want to quote
from an earlier work of mine—still unpublished—but
which in a few sentences outlines why I think the Bible presents
God as Truth and why I think the authors of Ohio’s moral
code are correct:
“I find the
most profound significance in the fact that the Bible presents
God as Truth: this is a perception that is too often ignored
or disregarded by modern writers. The two pertinent definitions
that are interplayed here are: (1) God is defined as the
supreme or ultimate reality; and (2) truth is the correspondence
of statements to the facts they describe.
“When we examine
the Old Testament scriptures we find that God identified Himself
with Truth by definition. When He was asked by Moses to verify
His identity, He said “I Am That I Am.” His
name YHWH, (pronounced in English as Lord or Adonay),
literally means: He that Is who He Is. If we look carefully
at this structure we can see that the statement that describes
God’s existence, “I Am,” corresponds to the reality
or fact of God’s existence, “that I Am.” Since
truth by definition is correspondence to reality, we learn
first that God is Truth in His inherent nature. We learn secondly
that his words are truth; and thirdly, we learn that the
reverse is true: ultimate reality (i.e. God) is correspondence
to ultimate Truth. Moreover, since the statement I Am that
I Am implies an active doing and being, we derive the knowledge
that God is the way or method, the truth and the life (cf. John
14:6).
“The Old Testament
confirms that God is ultimate Truth in many passages. In Jeremiah
10:10, for example, the Hebrew word emeth, meaning truth
is translated dynamically in the Amplified Bible: “But the
Lord is the true God and the God of truth—the God Who is
truth. He is the living God, and the everlasting King.”
And the fact that the words, the statements, and the laws of
God are truth is confirmed by Psalms 119:142, 151. Moreover,
the New Testament explicitly and repeatedly states that God is
synonymous with Truth: John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 5:7;
Cf. also John 14:6, John 17:17 and John 1:1.
“Centuries
of Christian writers have acknowledged this intrinsic nature
of God. St. Augustine’s passionate thirst for knowledge
of God culminated in his realization that Truth was a synonym
for Him. In his Confessions he wrote: “…Thee
only (who truly art Truth)…O Truth, Truth, how inwardly
did even then the marrow of my soul pant after Thee….Thee
Thyself, the Truth, in whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning…”
After this reading, you may well ask, why
I find Ohio’s religious moral code so offensive. Because
a State cannot impose religious teachings upon its citizens in
the United States of America! Even if it is advantageous for
the state to do so! This code does not represent “civic
renewal” it represents a “civic
religion.” Let’s go on to one or two more rules
of the twenty that illustrate the code is not entirely benevolent!
I should point out that I have links to the glossary on all twenty
steps in parallel column form. On one side, the text is exactly
as it appears on the Ohio State web site. On the other side,
the text has defined terms inserted in some cases and links to
the glossary on all important terms.
By clicking on the various terms that are
linked to the glossary,
one can see just how many terms come from the Bible and are common
in the evangelical churches—the entire code is based upon
biblical terminology.
Accountability
and Dependence, Surveillance and Scrutiny
But let’s go to Ohio State’s religious
moral code and examine
Rule 7, the rule on “Accountability.” We use the
term most frequently when discussing government officials, elected
representatives, corporation executives, and particularly for
people who hold positions in which they are responsible for other
people’s money. No one would argue that those in positions
of trust must not be held accountable. But Ken Blackwell’s
code uses the word “accountability” to focus away
from officials and turn the spot light on ordinary
Americans who are seeking guidance. The new religious moral
code seeks to make citizens dependent upon others. Moreover,
Blackwell’s code represents a new and morally deceptive
intrusion into the lives of every Ohio resident. In fact, the
authors of the code turn the word into an excuse for spying on
others. As such, it is a perversion of the scriptures and of
American’s civil and moral duty to hold our leaders
accountable. Here’s Rule 7:
“7. ACCOUNTABILITY:
High-character people scrutinize themselves and welcome
the scrutiny of others. They acknowledge that human nature
compels us toward independence. Our preference for independence
results in isolation from one another. Isolation breeds temptation
to unethical conduct. High character people resist this chain
reaction by adopting transparent life--and work--styles that
invite inspection. They place themselves in relationships that
motivate self-examination and encourage constructive critique
from others, particularly those they serve. (Observable Virtues:
an open, up-front, disclosing spirit)” (Emphasis added.)
Let me make it clear that I am not questioning
the fact that mature adults have learned to take responsibility
for their own actions. This is an essential step in the maturation
of every human being. Nor am I taking issue with the spiritual
and psychological necessity of self examination. Without
personal soul searching, spiritual growth and maturity is impossible.
What appears astonishing to me here is turning
over one’s own responsibility to others. It can be seen
in the use of the words:
“They welcome
the scrutiny of others…invite inspection…They
place themselves in relationships that …encourage…critique
from others…”
Moreover, the words “scrutinize”
and “scrutiny,” mean close observation, examination
and attention to minute details, investigation and surveillance
by others. These are not terms of a free society for
free citizens. To the contrary, this is a rule that leads to
the complete domination of a people. This rule implies that there
is no right of privacy and that government and men may probe
freely into the lives of all Ohio residents. By the way, the
assumption that isolation breeds temptation to unethical conduct
is refuted by the very fact that corporations in 2001 defrauded
California and its citizens of billions of dollars in the Energy
Scam of the century and they did it collectively and in tandem
with other energy companies. (And some, like Ken Lay, have not
yet been brought to the bar of justice.)
Let’s look at the subtle ways religious
beliefs are embedded in this rule again. The sentence reads:
“They [high
character people] acknowledge that human
nature compels us toward independence.”
The real question is why do “high character
people” acknowledge that statement to be true? Couldn’t
human
nature be equally propelled toward dependence and immaturity?
Could it be that the model for “high character people”
is none other than the biblical regenerated
Christian? Could it be that the New Testament epistles describe
man in his natural state to be depraved
or unregenerated? And that before men became Christians
they were described in the Bible to be “by nature the children
of wrath,”[16] but once divinely regenerated,
they became partakers of the Divine nature.”[17] So could
that be the reason that only “high character people”
acknowledge
that “human nature” is predisposed to a lower form
of being? That only “high character Christians” believe
that man in his nature is in a depraved condition? And that since
the Bible connects sin and depravity to a preference for
lawlessness,[18] and lawlessness in turn
is by definition a form of liberal freedom to do as one pleases,
is it not probable that Ohio’s religious moral code is equating
concepts of liberty, freedom and independence
with freedom from constraints in order to sin? Biblically, “freedom”
and “independence” can be very bad terms, and I submit,
the authors of Ohio’s religious moral code are fully aware
of this. But more than that—I submit that the code is an
attempt to drive American citizens into a pliable state of dependence
upon their leaders who will tell them what they can and can’t
do and this Rule 7 is psychologically designed to do just that!
There’s another problem in this rule:
the authors attempt to establish scrutiny of individuals by groups
by not only asserting unverified statements as facts, but by
making it appear as if they are presenting a logical statement,
that cannot be refuted. Let’s look at the premises:
Human nature compels
people toward independence. [Does it?]
Independence
results in isolation. [Does it?]
Isolation breeds
unethical conduct. [Does it?]
The problem is of course the proposed solution
doesn’t logically follow no matter how we try to divide
the sentences into logical formats. The solution reads:
“High character
people resist this chain reaction by adopting transparent life
- and work-styles that invite inspection. They place themselves
in relationships that motivate self-examination and encourage
constructive critique from others…” (Emphasis
added.)
This solution implies the ideal “high
character person” strives to be submissive to others—and
note these “others” are not designated professional
psychologists or others trained in counseling. The sentence merely
requires the high character person to place himself in relationships
with unknown others to be scrutinized and critiqued: it
implies that “others” know best—which in and of
itself leads to dependence upon those others for guidance in
conduct and thought. This idea is reiterated in Rule
18, which requires reliance on others for counsel. So the
two rules have a double whammy effect.[19]
This instruction is the antithesis of those
who so bravely were seeking Truth
in Rule 1! It is the opposite of the Christian ideal but
beware, there are plenty of scriptures in the New Testament that
can be used to support a drastic cultural change—a change
to the acceptance of concepts such as suppression, slavery and
“submission.” One comes readily to mind: “Wives
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”[20]
But by what power or authority does the state of Ohio seek to
impose submission to inspection and critiques by others upon
its population as a high ethical rule of life?
Respect and Depravity
Rule
8 fits hand in hand with Rule 7 because the authors have
chosen to introduce the term “depravity”
in their description of mankind and also openly cite the Golden
Rule from Matthew 7:13 and Luke 6:31 as a concept having
the power to “convict”
and causing conviction,
(“the state of being convinced of and repentant for one’s
sin.”) Let’s see how Ohio State’s religious moral
code divides mankind in Rule 8, quoted in part here:
“8. RESPECT:
High-character people treat
others as they would want to be treated. They have an accurate
view of the human
condition; namely that every person is capable of both dignified
and depraved conduct….Respect leads diverse people
to value the dignity of others while having the liberty to passionately
disagree with their opinions (opinions that can be influenced
by our depravity.”) Emphasis added.
The question here is how does one
passionately
disagree with another’s opinion and still maintain respect
for that individual? This is especially true when the opinion
the high character person passionately disagrees with is influenced
by the other’s “depravity.” I will argue
that the term “respect” means by definition “esteemed”
and “honored” and one does not esteem a person one
“passionately disagrees with.” And one cannot esteem
a person whose views are influenced by his depravity.
Depravity
is a religious word. It means:
“The quality
or state of being depraved; specifically: the state of sinfulness
natural to unregenerate man.”
And the word “depraved” means:
“marked by
debasement, corruption, perversion, or deterioration.”
These qualities are not admirable and are
the antithesis of traits most people “respect.” What
the Rule does describe, is the division of mankind into regenerated
and unregenerated people. It wrongly establishes two classes
of Americans: those that are “Christians” and those
that are not! These are religious terms and it is inappropriate
for a state of the union to adopt these concepts or to be teaching
its residents such religious beliefs.
Speaking With One
Voice
During a five day broadcast week called
“Seven Days Ablaze,” (September 16-20, 1985) Pat Robertson
returned again and again to the theme that America must have
“unity of thought.”
On September 19, 1985 Pat Robertson blasted
pluralism on his national television show, the 700 Club,
saying, “Today there are no absolutes. There is no standard.
And when that happens you have what is laughingly called ‘pluralism.’
The Greeks were constantly debating. They were trying one religion,
they were trying another, they were trying discourse, and they
were trying another. And what happened in their society is they
began to be fragmented because they couldn’t agree on which
was the philosophy to choose.”
The very next day, on September 20, 1985,
he began his dialogue, “Why don’t we agree? Why don’t
we pray together that God will touch the hearts of the people
that there might be unity. Because a house divided against itself
cannot stand. But if you’re together, there’s just
no end to the things you can do.” Mr. Robertson and the
religious right have never ceased their drumbeat for Americans
to speak with one voice.
Apparently, Ken Blackwell and the Ohio State
legislators have taken the first step to help Pat Robertson’s
prayer along. The religious moral code urged by Ohio has a new
rule: Rule 12 which reads:
“12. UNITY:
High-character people strive to build relationships that foster
oneness among others who are bound with them to a common promise,
mission or purpose. Ethical organizations seek uniformity in
their people's shared character ethics and unity among their
otherwise richly diverse people. Without a persevering commitment
to shared character ethics, there is no hope for sustainable
unity. (Observable Virtue: reconciler)” (Emphasis added.)
The answer to Pat Robertson’s prayer
appears to have arrived in Rule 12: everyone must join in a persevering
commitment to shared character ethics in order to sustain
“unity.” If you read that to mean shared religious
principles of behavior—you’ve got the message.
The rule implies that no one but high character people or “ethical”
organizations seek uniformity. If pluralism is a value you treasure—then
you must not be ethical and you must not have “high character.”
Once again the rule divides—it does not unite. Uniformity
of opinion, oneness, and sameness—is not a virtue, but a
vice. A vice that requires individuals to compromise truth. It
demands self censorship. Under what authority does the State
of Ohio impose this religious
moral code upon its citizens?
Honoring
Authority
In America, we have consistently believed
in the rule of law. The most famous exposition of the principle
was drafted by John Adams for the constitution of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, in justification of the principle of separation of powers:
In the government
of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never
exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them:
the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial
powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise
the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to
the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Massachusetts Constitution,
Part The First, art. XXX (1780).
The last phrase, "to the end it may
be a government of laws and not of men," has been quoted
with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme
court in the United States.
The idea that we are ruled by laws and not
by men is subtle. For there is no question that laws are made
by legislative bodies that consist of men and women. But it is
the law we respect and honor and not the people who made the
law. We may, in fact, disagree with a law, but we still acknowledge
the law.
Ohio’s religious moral
code introduces a subtle change to this concept. It introduces
a biblical concept requiring citizens to show a high regard or
appreciation to authorities in power, Webster’s says
the word honoring means “to pay tribute to: to exalt,
praise.” But it also requires citizens to yield to the
authorities in power. Let’s read Rule 14:
14.
HONORING
AUTHORITY: All people are imperfect, requiring boundaries
for behavior. High-character people
willingly yield to the authority
of those who are charged with upholding those boundaries.
They help shape and then abide by the legitimate laws, rules
and boundaries established by legitimate authorities and
strive to live within those boundaries for the betterment of
all people. When those given authority violate conscience-convicting
character ethics, high-character people take wise action to justly
hold them accountable. (Observable Virtues: yieldedness,
submission / “aligned with the mission”) Emphasis
added.
This Rule is peculiar because
of the choice of words. Most everyone understands what a law
is, but it is really unclear what the authors mean by “boundaries,”
even after one has consulted the dictionary. The term appears
to be something broader than a law. In fact, “boundaries”
appear to be something separate from “legitimate laws and
rules” inasmuch as laws and rules are distinguished from
it, nevertheless, “legitimate authorities” appear to
have established “boundaries.” It’s possible that
the authors intend this code—this list of twenty religious
moral rules—to become equivalent to the laws of a state.
If so, they have taken pains to obscure that fact. But consider
the possibility the authors believe the Bible to be the inerrant
word of God and its epistles to the religious communities of
2,000 years ago to be applicable to citizens of Ohio and the
U.S. today. Consider that the epistles limited human “Christian”
behavior, setting boundaries on what is acceptable in the eyes
of God and what is not, calling certain sexual acts beastial
and requiring women (and slaves) to be submissive, to be quiet,
to be unadorned plus many other requirements. Now consider the
possibility the authors of UncommonSense intend all these
prohibitions or “boundaries” to be applicable as the
equivalent to the laws of Ohio and the United States of America.
Perhaps that will give a clearer understanding of why the authors
have created a third category of “boundaries” that
go beyond the “laws and rules” of the land. And it
appears that this Rule requires all “high character”
people to yield or hand over their moral control to another!
Let’s look at the definition
of the word yield. Webster reads in part:
Yield,
vb. “2: to give or render as fitting, rightfully owed, or
required; 5: f: to hand over or resign to the moral control
of another: give to another the political, economic, or social
direction of: RELINQUISH 6 b (1) to admit the validity or
cogency of: consent, agree; vi 2: to give up and cease resistance
or contention: as a: to surrender and concede being defeated,
vanquished, or worsted: b: to cease opposition: give up the
contest: submit, succumb: c: to cease to withstand the effect
of some action d: to agree to accept or comply with something:
exhibit willingness rather than opposition: defer 5 a: to
give place or precedence (as to one having superior right or
claim) : acknowledge the superiority of someone else b: to be
inferior in some often specified respect.” (Emphasis added.)
Honoring authorities has suddenly
changed into a command not to contest and not to oppose
them. This is not only evidence of the un-American nature of
this so-called moral code, but it ties directly into the biblical
verses quoted by Mr. Justice
Antonin Scalia who has cited Romans 13:1-6 for biblical justification
for the death penalty. The New English version reads as follows:
“Every
person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority
but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted
by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting
a divine institution, and those who so resist have themselves
to thank for the punishment they will receive. For government,
a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish
to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right
and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents
working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will
have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold
the power of the sword, for they are God’s agents of punishment,
for retribution on the offender. That is why you are obliged
to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of
retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes.
The authorities are in God’s service and to these duties
they devote their energies.”
If the signers of the Declaration
of Independence believed this epistle, they would not have signed
the Declaration! For my readers who may not be familiar with
biblical passages, most Christians accept these verses to mean
that St. Paul is referring only to a benevolent government worthy
of trust. For Paul himself testified before King Agrippa, in
Acts 26: 10-12 that he had shut up innocent Christians in prison
and he had the “authority” to do so; he was acting
in an official capacity. He testified against those he apprehended
at their trials before they were put to death. He admitted he
tortured them and he maintained he had the “authority”
to do so. That same Paul discovered he had been a tyrant in his
position of authority—and it is not reasonable to believe
that by the time Paul became the leader of the church, he forgot
his own evil “authoritative” role. It is not reasonable
that he would now urge yielding to evil—a form of complicity!
In fact, most Christians compare Romans 13 to a passage in Acts
5:29 when the rulers of Jerusalem gave orders to the apostles,
Peter and the apostles answered, “We ought to obey God rather
than men.” This was and is a clear instance of civil disobedience
and rebellion against the authorities!
Liberty
Rule
15 emerges as an insidious infringement upon American civil
liberties. The rule does the opposite of what it says. It requires
citizens to impose self-censorship, and self-restraints that
would all but destroy civil liberties in Ohio and in America
if this religious moral code were adopted by other states. In
essence it demands that civil liberties be denied on a personal
level. Let’s read the Rule:
15.
LIBERTY:
High-character people preserve their public rights by fulfilling
their personal responsibilities. In order to preserve public
freedoms, every person must exercise private restraints. Therefore,
free people embrace self-control so the need for public controls
is minimized. As a result, high-character people communicate
and live out character ethics and intentionally exhort others
to do likewise as an active act of preserving liberty for
everyone. (Observable Virtues: temperance, self-control) (Emphasis
added)
Once again, if civil liberties
cannot be taken away from Americans, Americans can kill their
own right to liberty by refusing to exercise their rights. Significantly
the rule states why this must be done: civil liberties must be
voluntarily killed for the sake of the State. If citizens don’t
attend a rally—then the State doesn’t have to police
the rally! So Rule 15 asks citizens to voluntarily restrain their
rights in order that the State saves money! Not only that, but
high character people are required to exhort others to shut their
mouths too! And what exactly is meant by exhort? Here’s
one definition: “to incite by argument or advice: urge strongly.”
And Americans will do this for the greater goal of “preserving
liberty for everyone!”
Dominionism
and Stewardship
We started this essay by quoting
from prominent dominionists, who exposed their own intentions
of taking over America on every level, including government,
schools, neighborhoods, the arts and science. We’ll close
this essay by discussing Rule
17, which comes as close as any of the rules to establishing
a “dominionists” world view. The rule reads:
17.
STEWARDSHIP:
High-character people live as if they will eventually reap what
they sow. They actively identify with the role of trustee or
steward rather than owner. They perceive their function as a
resource or role “caretaker” for a limited time.
As a result they regard “positions” and “possessions”
as “conferred in temporary trust.” Therefore, they
care for their respective positions and possessions diligently
and seek to add value to every role and every resource to which
they have been entrusted. Ethical people have a high regard for
multiplying the value of their “accounts” for the purpose
of serving others and benefiting those who follow. (Observable
Virtues: humility, orderliness, carefulness) (Emphasis
added.)
It all starts with a famous
biblical passage: “High character people live as if they
will eventually reap what they sow.” This is a paraphrase
of Galatians 6:7. Similarly, the rule conveys the idea that high
character people (i.e. Dominionist Christians) don’t really
own anything, they are merely caretakers for “a limited
time.” Then whose property do they occupy? Dominionists—as
opposed to all other Christians—believe that they are the
“Vice Regents of God.” That is a direct quote from
D. James Kennedy that starts this
essay off. The idea of a regency stems from the dominionist teaching
that Jesus will not return to earth until the whole earth is
subdued and under the dominion of “Godly” men who will
be acting as caretakers or regents for Christ. In other words,
Dominionists plan to establish theocratic regencies—starting
with the United States. When the rightful King returns, (presumably
Jesus) they will turn over the government of the world to Him.
But until He shows up—the regents should have a heyday of
wealth and high living! (It’s interesting to note that Pat
Robertson renamed his school “Regent University.”)
The words “stewardship”
and “steward” are also heavy ladened with biblical
imagery. A steward is someone entrusted temporarily with property
until the return of the owner. Stewardship is the office of the
steward. So even passages like the story of the unjust steward
(Luke 16: 11-12) and the parable of the talents in Matthew
25: 14-30, come into play here. It’s important to note that
Rule 17 is chock full of biblical references and is pregnant
with the dominionist message. Let’s look at the definitions
of two words. First “caretaker” as used in this rule.
Caretaker:
“1: one that is placed usually as occupant in charge of
the upkeep, repairs, and protection of the house, estate, or
farm of an owner who may be absent 2: one fulfilling the functions
of office on a temporary or provisional basis (a caretaker government).”
And secondly:
Regency:
“1 a: the office, jurisdiction, or dominion of a regent
or vicarious ruler or of a body of regents 2: a territory governed
by a regent or regency. 4: a period during which a regent or
body of regents governs.”
Both of these terms have applicable
government definitions and applications. These words convey the
idea of the biblical steward and his responsibility to the true
owner, as do the words “conferred in temporary trust.”
But the authors have to push free market enterprise into the
idea of stewardship. So Rule 17 introduces the idea that “Ethical
people have a high regard for multiplying the value of their
‘accounts.’” That’s just a very, very nice
way of saying they like to “make a whole lot of money!”
But of course, it’s “for the purpose of serving others
and benefiting those who follow!” Blessed be the name of
the Lord!
Another scripture comes to
mind in the form of a rebuke. “The love of money is the
root of all evil.” (1 Tim. 6:10) The rebuke is needed. Once
again, I make the comment that Ohio’s religious moral code
is indeed “religious,” but it is not Christian. It’s
a tool to make populations submit to the authority of men who
intend to steal the United States out from under “We the
people.”
UncommonSense
is uncommon because its morally wrong and because it is not sense!
Ohio’s attempt to impose the state’s religious values
on its own people is a violation of the Constitution and is a
seditious act by the leaders who have set this code in place.
Forces have been set in motion
that are attempting to destroy our republic. Only “We the
people” can save our nation now. The voters of Ohio have
to fire the men and women who have schemed secretly to suppress
them. The voters of America have to rise up as one and throw
the seditious leaders out of office. Sedition is running rampant
through GOP controlled legislative houses and congress. “We
the people” must be willing to stand up and say to those
who are trying to destroy America as we know it, “You shall
not pass!” “You shall not touch liberty!”
Raise the staff of Truth! No Balrog can impede the progress
of Liberty. No Balrog can stamp out our values for the common
good to better all our lives and not just a few. “We
are the people! And you shall not dominate us!”
The Bridge of Khazad-dum
and The Defeat of the Balrog
There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The
Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments…
‘You cannot pass!’ he said.
With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip
whirled and hissed.
‘He cannot stand alone!’ cried Aragorn suddenly and
ran back along the bridge.
‘Elendil!’ he shouted. ‘I am with you Gandalf!’
‘Gondor!’ cried Boromir and leaped after him.
At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he
smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell
from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The
bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog’s feet it broke, and
the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the
rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust
out into emptiness.With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow
plunged down and vanished.”
J. R. R. Tolkien from The Fellowship of the Ring
[1]
The Conference was held at James Kennedy’s church, Coral
Ridge Presbyterian, in Fort Lauderdale in February, 2005. See:
Bob Moser, “The Crusaders, Christian evangelicals are plotting
to remake America in their own image” originally published
in Rolling Stone, April 7, 2005 and then posted at the Yurica
Report at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristiansPlotToRemakeAmerica.html
See also “A Mission to ‘Reclaim
America’ by Jane Lampman, March 16, 2005, from CBS and the
Christian Science Monitor, posted at the Yurica Report at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/MissionToReclaimAmerica.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1113271947906&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040
[3]
America’s Providential History, (Including Biblical
Principles of Education, Government, Politics, and Family Life)
by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, 1989, The Providence
Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia. In the Introduction, page
VII.
[5]
Note the new pledge of allegiance of this dominionist group as
written in Bob Moser’s article: “In the conference's
opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream
of hearing in every classroom: 'I pledge allegiance to the Christian
flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior,
crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for
all who believe.’”
“The Crusaders, Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake
America in their own image” by Bob Moser, originally published
in Rolling Stone, April 7, 2005 and then posted at the Yurica
Report at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristiansPlotToRemakeAmerica.html
[6]
Jeffrey Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ, Inside America’s
most powerful mega-church.” Published by Harper’s Magazine.
http://harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html
Sharlet writes: "In addition to
New Life, Pastor Ted presides over the National Association of
Evangelicals (NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30 million believers
make up the nation’s most powerful religious lobbying group,
and also over a smaller network of his own creation, the Association
of Life-Giving Churches, 300 or so congregations modeled on New
Life’s “free market” approach to the divine...New
Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, 'like the benefits,
risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.'
They like the stimulation of a new brand. 'Have you ever switched
your toothpaste brand, just for the fun of it?' Pastor Ted asks.
Admit it, he insists. All the way home, you felt a 'secret little
thrill,' as excited questions ran through your mind: 'Will it
make my teeth whiter? My breath fresher?'....This is the sensation
Ted wants pastors to bring to the Christian experience. He believes
it is time 'to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in
our ministry.' Globalization, he believes, is merely a vehicle
for the spread of Christianity. He means Protestantism in particular;
Catholics, he said, 'constantly look back.' ....'My fear,”
he says, 'is that my children will grow up in an Islamic state.'
"And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile,
worldly counterpart. 'I teach a strong ideology of the
use of power,' he says, 'of military might, as a public service.'
He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s
exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and
he is for ferocious war, because 'the Bible’s bloody. There’s
a lot about blood.'"
[7]
See also Katherine Yurica’s essay, “Conquering by
Stealth and Deception: How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in
Their Quest for National Control and World Power,” which
discusses Bobbitt’s analysis and vision of a future American
agenda and structure based upon neo-conservative ideology and
analyzes the clues to his acceptance of dominionism as a vehicle
to accomplish his market-state empire-expanding vision. See Philip
Bobbitt’s book The Shield of Achilles, Alfred A.
Knopf, N.Y. 2002. See Yurica’s essay at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm
[9]
Ibid. Bobbitt, like Machiavelli, sees war, as all conservatives
do, a necessity for the expansion of the growth of a state.
[10]
The tract does not identify any author, but simply states that
it is copyrighted in 2003 by the American Center for Civic Character,
Version 5.5.
[12]
Gary
North has actually pointed out that the 13th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution preserves the right of slavery and involuntary
servitude for the punishment of crimes. North actually embraces
the idea of bringing slavery back for punishment purposes.
[13]
See for example 1 Corinthians 3: 19: “For the wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God.” And see 1 Corinthians
1:27: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world
to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of
the world to confound the things which are mighty.”
[14]
This
definition suggests or implies what the politically conservative
Machiavelli made famous: “the ends justify the means,”
though morally reprehensible, it is manifestly adopted by today’s
neo-conservative/dominionist political duo.
[15]
See Proverbs 3: 19-20: “The Lord by wisdom hath founded
the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop
down the dew.” KJV. And see Psalm 136:5.
[16]
Ephesians 2:3. But compare the term “regeneration”
in Matthew 19:28; and in Titus 3:5 where individuals are regenerated.
And see II Corinthians 5:17 where regeneration makes “new
creature [or creation] in Christ Jesus.”
[17]
2 Peter 1:4. II Corinthians 5: 17.
[18]
See 1 John: 3:4 where the Greek word anomia is translated
“lawlessness” in most of the Bible versions. Compare
the following:
The Amplified
Bible reads: “Every one who commits (practices) sin
is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness
[the breaking, violating of God’s law by transgression or
neglect; being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and
His will].
Similarly,
the New International Version reads: “Everyone who
sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.”
The New
American Standard Bible reads: “Every one who practices
sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”
The Revised
Standard Bible reads: “Every one who commits sin is
guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.”
The New
English Bible reads: “To commit sin is to break God’s
law: sin, in fact, is lawlessness.”
The King
James Version reads: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth
also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.”
[19]
See Also Rule 18. SEEKING COUNSEL, where high character people
seek advice from wise people of “high character.”
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article